Appeal 2007-2510
Application 10/389,456
1 23. Rather, Wang disputes the propriety of combining these references, as
2 summarized supra.
3 24. Wang does not appear to raise separate arguments as to the
4 patentability of dependent claims.
5 C. Discussion
6 Obviousness is a question of law based on underlying questions of
7 fact. See, e.g., Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459,
8 467 (1966). As the Supreme Court recently stated:
9 Often, it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated
10 teachings of multiple patents . . . and the background
11 knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the
12 art, all in order to determine whether there was an apparent
13 reason to combine the known elements in the fashioned claimed
14 by the patent at issue. To facilitate review, this analysis should
15 be made explicit.
16 KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396
17 (2007) (citation omitted). On appeal, the burden is on the appellant to
18 demonstrate reversible error by the Examiner.
19 "In contact with"
20 In the present case, the Examiner based the rejections of record on the
21 interpretation of the contact limitation (i.e., "the oxide liner in contact with
22 the germanium containing layer" in claim 36 and the corresponding
23 limitations in independent claims 21 and 28) as being broad enough to
24 encompass an intervening silicon nitride (SiN) layer between the
25 semiconductor substrate and the oxide layer. The Examiner's rationale in the
26 Answer at 5 is essentially identical to the Examiner's rationale in the Final
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013